Universitetet i Stavanger
Picture from IVAR’s facility in Forus (Source; own illustration)
Innovation in the Norwegian waste industry:
“What do the waste industry find important in order to increase the degree of robotics?”
By
Kristina Løvhaugen Herault (Candidate number: 4044)
Anette Horpestad
(Candidate number: 4086)
MASTEROPPGAVE MASTER I ØKONOMI OG ADMINISTRASJON
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, UIS BUSINESS SCHOOL
MASTER’S THESIS
STUDY PROGRAM:
MASTER I ØKONOMI OG ADMINISTRASJON
THESIS IS WRITTEN IN THE FOLLOWING
SPECIALIZATION/SUBJECT:
BUSINESS INNOVATION
IS THE ASSIGNMENT CONFIDENTIAL?
(NB! Use the red form for confidential theses)
TITLE:
INNOVATION IN THE NORWEGIAN WASTE INDUSTRY:
“WHAT DO THE WASTE INDUSTRY FIND IMPORTANT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE DEGREE OF ROBOTICS?”
AUTHOR(S)
KRISTINA LØVHAUGEN HERAULT
ANETTE HORPESTAD
SUPERVISOR:
HILDE NESS SANDVOLD
Candidate number:
4044………
4086………
Name:
KRISTINA LØVHAUGEN HERAULT
………
….
ANETTE HORPESTAD
………
….
Foreword
This thesis is our final assignment for our Master degree of Science and Business
Administration, specialization in innovation. Achieving a Master’s degree at the University of Stavanger has been exciting and educational and in addition we made a lot of international friends.
First, we would like to show gratitude to our thesis supervisor, Hilde Ness Sandvold for providing us with excellent advice and feedback for our thesis. Additionally, devoting her time to support us through our final work during our education. We would also like to thank Andreas Lofthus Fidjeland for valuable feedback, which helped improve our spelling and sentence structure.
Secondly, we would like to thank Atle Rettedal at RobotNorge AS for answering quickly on our email and giving us the opportunity to learn about robotics and being able to use the company in our thesis.
Lastly, we would like to give a great thanks to all the interview participants in the different companies; Norsk Gjenvinning AS, Ragn-Sells AS, Westco AS, IVAR IKS, Romerike avfallsforedling IKS, Retura TRV and The Consultant for communicating a lot of useful knowledge on the waste industry.
Kristina Løvhaugen Herault and Anette Horpestad
Executive summary
This thesis addresses what the Norwegian waste industry find important in order to increase the degree of robotics, by looking into the companies’ value chain. Therefore, we find it interesting to look into RobotNorge’s robots, to find out if they are interesting choice for the waste industry. In order to uncover if RobotNorge’s products are suitable for the waste industry we choose a sub-question, “Does RobotNorge's robots fit into what the waste
industry find important?”.
The background of the waste industry in Norway is to ensures collection, treatment and recycling of around 11-12 million tons of waste yearly and have a turnover for more than NOK 22 billion annually. The robotics industry in Norway however, have a low density of industry robots compared to other countries. An explanation is related to the composition of industries in Norway, as both of the manufacturing are related to the exploitation of oil and gas and fishing industries which play an important role in Norway.
We choose a qualitative research method in order to collect new and firsthand information through semi-structured interviews. The companies’ names are Norsk Gjenvinning AS (NG), Ragn-Sells AS, Westco AS, IVAR IKS, Romerike avfallsforedling IKS (ROAF) and Retura TRV. These are carefully selected based on their location in Norway.
Throughout the analysis, we look into the degree of robotics today which is based on the information we have collected though our interviews. There is only one company that is about to start using robots with AI in their production process, NG. However, ROAF, IVAR and NG also use Near Infrared (NIR) technology machines developed by TOMRA. This sensor-based sorting technology is the new modern method for recycling facility in waste industry. Additionally, according to all informants within both intercommunal and private companies, they indicate the robot would be most efficient to have within the production process, which will result in higher end product quality.
The Norwegian waste industry have some barriers which is interesting in regards of
implementation of robotics, such as price, requirements and regulations, and some informants mentioned a barrier with the robot’s software and functionality. Furthermore, the companies’
innovation focus is mainly through consultants, own research or observations from other companies.
The waste industry expects robotics technology to become better in the future which can help the industry to meet the environmentally friendly expectations from society. However, according to ROAF the robotics technology must be adapted in a larger selection than the existing solution. The robot technology must be combined and further developed both in the gripping function and appearance of the robot, the whole robot must be improved. Which creates an opportunity for the future.
We have found six important factors for the waste industry which are related to price of robotics, efficiency of robotics, quality of the end product (clarity), implementing options of robotics, experienced suppliers and access to knowledge.
For both intercommunal and private companies’, the highest valued factor is quality of the end product (clarity). Secondary, for intercommunal is efficiency of robotics and for private is price of robotics. Thirdly, for intercommunal is implementing options of robotics and for private access to knowledge.
Answering our sub-question, RobotNorge’s product the FlexPicker is useful for smaller assembly lines to pick out light objects such as batteries, glass or HDPE. However, the FlexPicker is less suitable for private companies compared to the intercommunal companies since both financial point and waste type differ. Yet, RobotNorge have the possibility of creating custom made solutions for the different needs for each company as they have a large selection of different robot bodies to choose from at ABB. Still, the solutions are not optimal as it is time consuming and costs money.
The overall result shows the degree of robotics is expected to increase if the robot can meet the requirements such as higher clarity on the end product, higher efficiency, affordable price etc. This will result in competitive advantage for the waste industry and relief them from monotonous and some unsafe working tasks. However, the high uncertainty of how long period it’s going to take to accomplish the expected accuracy and capacity of robotics, lead to a barrier to implement robotics today.
Table of content
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 2: Background 4
2.1 The Norwegian waste industry 4
2.1.1 Value chain 4
2.1.2 The industry statistics 7
2.2 Robot and robotics in Norway 8
2.3 Norwegian Supplier 11
Chapter 3: Theory 13
3.1 Innovation 13
3.1.1 Process and Product Innovation 14
3.1.2 Incremental and disruptive/radical innovation 15
3.1.3 Knowledge spillover and Innovation clusters 16
3.2 Innovation strategy 17
3.2.1 Value Chain analysis 19
3.2.2 Barriers and motivation factors 20
Chapter 4: Method 23
4.1. Qualitative method 23
4.1.1 Different qualitative methods 23
4.1.2 Different interview methods 25
4.2. Primary and Secondary data 26
4.3. Reliability and Validity of Data 26
4.4 Conducting of the interviews 27
Chapter 5: Analysis and Findings 29
5.1 Current Standpoint 29
5.1.1 The degree of robotics today (Q2) 29
5.1.2 Value chain capabilities (Q3,5,7) 30
5.1.3 Barriers (Q4,16) 33
5.1.4 Innovation focus (Q6,8,10) 35
5.2 Prospective Future 37
5.2.1 Environmentally friendly (Go green) (Q9) 37
5.2.2 The Robot Potential (Q11,12,13) 38
5.2.3 Opportunities (Q4,14,15) 41
5.2.4 Financial Value (Q17) 42
5.3 Dissimilarities 44
5.4 Findings 45
5.5 RobotNorge AS 47
Chapter 6: Conclusion 50
Reference list: 52
Appendix 1: Overview waste treatment 55
Appendix 2: Interview Guide 56
Appendix 3: Interview transcript 1-6 58
Interview 1: IVAR IKS (Interview in person) 58
Interview 2: Ragn sells (Skype) 71
Interview 3: Romerike Avfallsforedling IKS (skype) 78
Interview 4: Retura TRV (Tlf) 86
Interview 5: Westco AS (Interview in person) 91
Interview 6: Norsk Gjenvinning AS (Tlf) 97
Figure Table
Figure 1: Household waste value chain model 5
Figure 2: Construction and firm waste value chain model 6
Figure 3: Number of industrial robots by country (per 10,000 employees) 9
Figure 4: TOMRA’s sensor function overview 10
Figure 5: Robot variant IRB 260-30/1.5 12
Figure 6: Innovation dimensions 18
Figure 7: Michael Porter’s Value chain 19
Figure 8: Overview over companies interviewed for the thesis 28
Figure 9: Waste process value chain model 32
Figure 10: Informants find important in robotics 39
Figure 11: Three most important factors for the companies 46
Figure 12: Robot variant IRB 360 FlexPicker 48
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Innovation is rapidly changing the waste industry, particularly with regards to
automation and digitalization. In order to meet our desire to learn about robotics, we formed a collaboration with RobotNorge in Klepp. This collaboration grew into the waste industry which fitted into our secondary wish of passion for eco-friendly solutions (go green).
Therefore, our research question is;
“What do the waste industry find important in order to increase the degree of robotics?”
Our goal is to investigate and recognize what the Norwegian waste industry find important when it comes to increased degree of robotics, by looking into the companies’ value chain.
The reason we look at this need of increased robotics is to eliminate autonomous work tasks and increase end product clarity which characterize the industry. We hope to find solutions for easier implementation of robotics to the waste industry. Therefore, we choose a sub- question in order to make it clearer. Our sub-question is;
(1) “Does RobotNorge's robots fit into what the waste industry find important?”
We find it interesting to look into RobotNorge’s robots, this because they are the main supplier of robotics in Norway and therefore an interesting choice for the waste industry.
In order to answer our research question, we use qualitative method and create interview guide in order to connect relevant theories and to obtain important data. This, through six semi-structured interviews with specific selected waste companies in Norway, where we collect the necessary data to conduct this analysis. The selected companies are Norsk Gjenvinning AS, Ragn-Sells AS, Westco AS, IVAR IKS, Romerike avfallsforedling IKS, Retura TRV, a consultant for the waste industry and a private informant from the industry.
These were carefully selected based on their location and market share in Norway, additionally if they were intercommunal or private owned. We had a conversation with a knowledgeable consultant who delivers services to the waste industry, he came highly
2 recommended by IVAR, we met him at IVAR’s facility in Forus. After the interviews with The Consultant and Westco we got a tour of IVAR’s and Westco’s facilities.
We are confident in the integrity of the data collected from the companies. Further, we analyze the current standpoint and prospective future of robotics in the industry using proven methodologies and academic literature.
How we define robotics. Automation is referred to as when machines and technologies substitute human tasks, robotics however are categorized both with- and without artificial intelligence (AI). The robots without AI are machines which are installed to do what it's told, the robots with AI on the other hand have the capability to learn and imitate as a human being. An example of what an AI can learn is how to pick up a tomato gently without destroying it.
Despite the importance of understanding Innovation in the Norwegian waste industry, the information about this topic are somehow limited. The acquired knowledge and collected information within the waste industry is primarily gathered through secondary data from online searching. Furthermore, there are limitations with scarcity of field research and the interpretation of information obtained.
3 The following chapters structure:
Chapter 2: Provides background information about the Norwegian waste industry and its value chain. In addition, robotics technology in Norway and information on Norwegian robotic suppliers.
Chapter 3: Presents relevant literature and theories about innovation, different types of innovation and knowledge spillover. In addition, Innovation strategy, with theoretical analysis of value chain. Lastly, barriers and motivational factors in the Norwegian waste industry, with specific interest in the waste industry and the barriers they experience together with motivational factors for increased robotics.
Chapter 4: Presents qualitative method used for this thesis and provides assistance in order to collect necessary data.
Chapter 5: Explains the results from the collected data and analyze the current standpoint and prospective future of the Norwegian waste industry. In addition, investigating dissimilarities and discus findings. We present an overview about RobotNorge’s robots and discuss if they fit into what the waste industry find important.
Chapter 6: We conclude our thesis based on our findings and provide future research recommendations.
4
Chapter 2: Background
A short introduction of both the waste industry and the robotics industry in Norway, further introducing Norwegian suppliers of robotics. We present statistics and general information in order to provide the necessary information throughout the thesis.
2.1 The Norwegian waste industry
All information on the waste industry is collected through secondary data sources such as Avfall Norges website. The waste industry in Norway ensures collection, treatment and recycling of around 11-12 million tons of waste yearly. The industry employs about eight thousand people and have a turnover for more than NOK 22 billion annually.
The municipalities have a statutory responsibility to collect and treat waste from the households in each municipality. In several municipalities there are intercommunal companies which owns their own facilities who handles the collected waste. However, in general most of the companies in Norway are private and have the responsibility for firm and construction waste.
The last 30 years waste has gone from being a “purely pollutant” theme to a source of heat, important raw materials and environmentally friendly energy. It has gone from discussing recycling and utilization of waste, to waste prevention, circulation and future raw materials.
The waste system today has been developed through a number of public investigations, policy requirements and parliamentary reports. Waste is today referred to as part of the solution to future climate challenges.
2.1.1 Value chain
The figures in this chapter is based on information from the companies and other informants within the waste industry. These value chains show the different paths the household-, construction- and firm waste have from consumers to companies. We have not taken into account for dangerous waste such as paint, glue, varnish, oil products, bases, acids and much more. The companies are only allowed to take in a fraction of what exists.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph the municipalities are responsible for all the
5 household within their municipality. The value chain for the household waste is shown in the figure below, the municipality that doesn’t have their own intercommunal company usually outsource through public tender online in order to hire a waste company to collect the household waste. The company which have the best offer gets the job.
(Figure 1: Household waste value chain model, own illustration)
When it’s outsourced through public tender the job can either go to intercommunal- or private company and the winning company either uses their own garbage trucks or hires if needed.
However, if a private company collects waste in a municipality through public tender, they are required to deliver the collected waste to the entitled intercommunal company’ facility.
The construction- and firm waste on the other hand have a slightly different path, the waste from construction and firm can differ from household. The difference is based on what type of garbage is collected such as materials for constructions and for firms there is a lot of office supplies and props, however there may be some smaller amounts of household waste here as well. The party responsible are the firms which produces the waste and they usually
have a preferred waste company, however there are many agents from the waste industry traveling to meet and connect with new customers. Furthermore, there are only private
6 companies in this section and they have their own garbage trucks, moreover the private waste companies hire special equipment for special needs, such as cranes or other machines.
(Figure 2: Construction and firm waste value chain model, own illustration)
The companies which collects household waste have a monthly schedule which the
municipality creates, every street have a specific day within the week. The private companies collecting other types of waste are much more flexible on when they collect, some firms wish to have the garbage collected daily other calls when needed. Moreover, some of the
companies have contracts with their competitors where they can deliver waste to a sorting station if its profitable. For example, company A have a full garbage truck and its shorter distance to unload at company B (competitor) and for then to fill up the truck again on the way to company A’s sorting station. This to avoid unnecessary time consumption.
When the waste company collects garbage, it's called “upstream” and sorting and recycling activities are called “downstream” (how to get rid of the garbage). The downstream consists of sorting, selling, incinerating, paying to get rid of (buying), landfill (non-recyclable waste)
7 and recycling (metal, plastic, cardboard etc.). One informant mentioned a theory where if robots can relieve the downstream, the companies can focus on creating a solution for how to regain the landfill (non-recyclable waste) such as butchers, ropes, straps, blow sand, some types of plaster etc. We have created an overview over how the different waste type are handled which is shown in appendix 1.
2.1.2 The industry statistics
Statistics Norway (SSB) keeps control of the waste volume statistics, utilization rates and the different methods of waste treatment. According to SSB a study from 2015 shows a decrease in material recycling of household waste since 2008. Moreover, in 2014,
approximately 82 % of household waste was removed in Norway. The largest sorted material is paper, cardboard and beverage cartons, according to SSB about 16,000 tons per year.
Household waste on the other hand were 37 % used for material recycling, composting or biogas production. The Norwegian population has become better at sorting out food from the residual waste. However, they have thrown 182,000 tons of food a year.
According to the website proff.no the industry consists of 1632 companies. However, after limiting to companies with 20 employees or more and only counting all companies once, excluding each department, we result in 156 companies in the Norwegian waste industry.
There are about 60 recycling stations in Norway which offers environmentally friendly alternatives to peat-based garden soil from compost. However, there is still a lot of potential in this industry based on the technology and knowledge gathered from years of experience, to minimize waste, producing more efficiently and increasing recycling is the key to the circular economy.
Employees in the waste industry carries out an important public service that affects energy production, transport challenges, resource use, public health and environment. Yet, some employees have work environment hazards related to their tasks, such as risk of trapping, falling and millstone, therefore it requires a lot of training to ensure safety. Furthermore, they have to work with unpleasant smells, humdrum and there is little socialization between the employees since they are spread on different sections on the facility site.
8 2.2 Robot and robotics in Norway
According to the publication from 2015 by IrisGroup “Digitization and automation in the Nordic manufacturing sector” the Norway’s business and innovation policy has until now had a limited focus on automation and industrial digitalization. For example, The Norwegian government supports digitalization and automation in manufacturing through broader cluster initiatives under the program funded by the government called Norwegian Innovation
Clusters. Norwegian Centers of Expertise (NCE) Raufoss is one of the industrial clusters with its objective to develop cutting edge research within niche areas of manufacturing, gathering companies specializing in production of lightweight materials by means of automated production. Working together on new automation technology that can be used in their production.
According to source International Federation of Robotics (2015) Sweden has the highest share of industry robots among the Nordic countries and ranks as number three on a global scale. Traditionally, Sweden is the frontrunner among the Nordic countries and in Europe, when it comes to automation. Many of the large Swedish companies compete in highly globalized markets and a large proportion of manufacturing outputs are goods, manufactured in large batches. Shown in Figure 3 the highest ranked Nordic countries are Sweden 5th place, Denmark 6th place and Finland place 15. The reason for the high degree of robotics can be explained, Sweden were early with automation robots with Volvo in the car industry and have later on expand to other manufacturing industries. Denmark on the other hand have successfully developed a company cluster in Odense named Odense Robotics. This have resulted in a high focus on developing and maturing the robotics technology, which have ensured Denmark a high ranking in industrial robotics. In a Nordic context, Finnish policies are characterized by disruptive research with focus on collaboration supported by strong cluster eco-systems.
On the other hand, Norway has a low density of industry robots compared to other countries.
One explanation is related to the composition of industries in Norway, as both of the
manufacturing are related to the exploitation of oil and gas and fishing industries which play an important role in Norway. However, according to Teknologirådet’s report from 2013, these industries are considered to be rather small on a global scale and when global
9 manufacturers of automation technologies develop a new standardized technology, those industries are not in focus. If Norway were to apply the standard automation technologies available at the global market, it may be more time-consuming and expensive. Another explanation is related to the high labor cost in Norway, which may cause management to doubt their chances in a globalized market. The incentives may hamper for long-term investments in new production technologies, but on other hand the high labor cost is a very strong incentive to invest in automation technology.
Figure 3: Number of industrial robots by country (per 10,000 employees)
(Source: Consultancy.org analysis, International Federation of Robotics, Bloomberg, 2018).
10 Another type of technology used in the Norwegian market is TOMflaskeReturAutomat
(TOMRA) which we define as Robot without AI, are machines using Near-Infrared (NIR)- technology. TOMRA is a Norwegian company which is the global leader in sensor-based sorting technology with its aim to reduce landfill waste using newest innovation technology.
The picture below (figure 4), illustrate how TOMRA machine recognize different materials with use of infrared sensors. The machine recognizes and separate materials based on their color characteristics and mineral fingerprint checked against the NIR wavelength spectrum.
This type of sensors creates the opportunity to sort more specifically such as X-ray to separate metals from precious metals.
Figure 4: TOMRA’s sensor function overview (picture use granted permission from Kjell Fredriksen; owner)
11 2.3 Norwegian Supplier
The Norwegian robotics supplier, RobotNorge AS delivers complete solutions of robotics in Norway and have a monopoly on the robotics market. However, RobotNorge are fresh in the waste industry market which has a leading competitor from Finland named ZenRobotics Ltd founded in 2007. Furthermore, ZenRobotics are leading robotics recycling systems company in Europe and they early saw the robotics potential within the waste industry.
RobotNorge AS was established in 2003 and is the leading robotics company- and sole agent for ABB’s total robot program in Norway. Moreover, ABB is the global leading supplier of the robot industry and delivers robot software, equipment and complete application solutions.
Trallfa Robot was established in 1963 by Jæren Automasjonsseskap and Ole Molaug agreed to develop an industrial robot with their desire to produce a painting robot for cars. However, Trallfa Robot were sold to ABB in 1985.
Furthermore, RobotNorge have 30 years of experience within sale, engineering, installation and service of automation solutions for Norwegian industries, with robot as a natural centerpiece.
The founders of RobotNorge AS were working in ABB’s robotics department when they decided to start out on their own. Today RobotNorge is owned by Trolltunga Robotics AS which also is the mother company for RobotNorge’s Swedish sister company RobNor AB.
Today the company employ 30 employees which has more than 400 years of combined experience in applied robotics. Their vision is to create and contribute to an actively profitable manufacturing industry in Norway.
Below we have shown one of RobotNorge’s solutions for milk cartons moving procedure.
This robot shows how many different tasks and range of applications RobotNorge intends to develop for the different industries.
12 Figure 5: Robot variant IRB 260-30/1.5 (source: own illustration)
RobotNorge have created a robot they mean is useful for the waste industry which is called FlexPicker. This robot where originally created to pick and pack products for shipment.
RobotNorge have converted FlexPicker to recognize the different types of waste materials with picture recognition, however it’s in its starting process and are not fully developed yet.
RobotNorge AS are considering to create a sister company that will focus only on distribute robots to the waste industry and meet their needs. However, they have not yet decided on the name for this company and for the moment they have one robot which is capable to sort the garbage on the assembly line. This makes a large innovation space within this industry for them.
13
Chapter 3: Theory
The chosen theories are based on our research question and will provide understanding about the importance of robotics implementation to the waste industry. The theories are based on relevant literature, assumed theory needed, however, additions have been added on account of our findings.
3.1 Innovation
Innovation is not a new phenomenon and argued by Fagerberg (2003) it has existed for decades. Despite its importance, innovation has not always got the scholarly attention it deserves. However, this has changed rapidly and it seems to be inherited in humans thinking.
It's about the tendency to think about new and better ways of doing things and carry them out in practice. Without innovation the world would not look like it is today, as it is a fundament in the business world allowing competitiveness between firms.
To further describe what innovation is, one would first look at distinction between innovation and invention. "Invention is the first occurrence of an idea for a new product or process, while innovation is the first attempt to carry it out into practice" (Fagerberg, 2003). To explain in other words innovation is about the process of translating an idea or invention into a service or good creating a value for customers.
Robotics technology and the increased use of AI are a great progress for innovations with significant growth expectations for the future. There are not many studies about development of robotics as an innovation today (Keisner et. al., 2015).
According to Schumpeter, innovation may be distinguished between five different types such as new products, new methods of production, new sources of supply, exploitation of new markets and new ways to organize business. However, the main focus began particularly on the first two types which later on were classified as "product innovation" and "process innovation". The argument to distinguish product and process innovation rests on differences between the economic and social impact. For instance, it is assumed that introduction of a new product has a positive effect on growth of income and employment while process
14 innovation has more of a cost-cutting nature and is therefore more ambiguous (Edquist et al.
2001).
3.1.1 Process and Product Innovation
The Organization of Economic CO-Operation and Development, hereafter called OECD (2005) defines process innovation as; “New or significantly improved production or delivery method. This includes significant changes in production techniques, equipment and software.”
In order to understand innovation processes, Pavit (2013) suggest following general framework:
(1) Innovation process have the opportunity to involve exploration and exploitation for new or improved products, processes or services. Based on an advance technical practice "know- how" or a change in market demand or a combination of both. Mowery and Rosenberg (1979) discuss and criticize the exclusive preoccupation with only one set of these forces in their paper and underline the importance of both demand and supply side.
(2) Innovation is highly uncertain making it impossible to predict the accurate cost and performance of new artifacts and the user’s reactions to it. Therefore, the learning through experimentation or improved understanding with theory is inevitable. Further, some of this learning is firm-specific such us experimentation through competition among alternative products, systems, processes, and services and the technical and organizational processes that deliver them.
The process innovation is complex, involving many variables with imperfect understanding resulting in firms not being able to give an accurate performance of major innovations or potential users. On average, it tends to be an over optimism approach from research scientists and engineers in form of costs, benefits, and time periods of their proposed projects. Also, about the market demand (Freeman 1982; Mansfield 1995). Especially radical innovations tend to be difficult for businesses to define the full array of possible users that may emerge for their innovations.
15 OECD (2005) defines product innovation as an; “Introduction of new or significantly
improved product or service to the market and consumers.” Either the product innovation can be brand new products which have never been introduced in the market or newly added features, functions, components, new materials, and packaging.
In order to remain sustainable and competitive of the firm, it is crucial to innovate. It may cause a boost in product’s profit, when attracting more users and having more efficient
machines helping to produce more product in less time. For instance, designing machines that are more efficient may save human labor and materials during production. (Wang et.al 2019) The economic literature demonstrates that innovation is a major driver for strengthening a firm’s competitive ability but however, the influence of knowledge accumulation on the investment of product and process innovations are few. Gopalakrishnan et. al (1999) found some strategic implications in the knowledge-based dimensions when reexamining the characteristics of product and process innovations. A common assumption in the economic literature is that a firm’s cost in production is related to the process innovation. (Li and Ni, 2016). However, when increasing product quality, the productions cost goes up as well (Wang et.al 2019).
Robot technology is mostly found during the process innovation usually connected to an assembly line, this is because the robots are placed at one spot working with autonomous tasks with great precision. Moreover, the robot can in some cases increase the product innovation quality. For example, the end result of sorted waste for recycling.
3.1.2 Incremental and disruptive/radical innovation
Incremental innovation is a series of small upgrades or improvements of an already existing product, process or service over time, “do what we do but better” (Tidd and Bessant, 2014). The company usually focuses on improvements which will make their product more productive, effective and differentiate (Fagerberg et al., 2005). Incremental innovation is one of the most common methods for companies today for the consumer technology industry,
16 often to improve market position. Furthermore, because it's a more stable method, often cheaper, providing continual return and it has a low risk attached. An example is cell phones, both Samsung, Apple and other producers keep releasing a new version of their old design almost every year. For each new launched phone both design and functions are only slightly changed from the previous version.
Radical innovation also known as disruptive innovation however, is the opposite to incremental. Now the company have created something completely new, “do something different” (Tidd and Bessant, 2014), which is not easy today. To achieve disruptive
innovation the new product, process or service must have a significant improvement and be designed and able to replace the already existing method or product completely (Fagerberg et al., 2005). Moreover, radical innovation often carries higher risks, lower chance of success and requires a lot of time and resources. Furthermore, almost every time it is a lot more expensive than foreseen. However, it can’t guarantee a profitable result, it usually has a higher reward if it’s successful. An example of radical innovation could be telephones. First radical innovation was from stationary telephone to cell phones, however shortly after the cell phones were replaced by smartphones. Both radical innovations were able to replace the existing product entirely.
After we have had a look at both methods, we can see why incremental are more common than radical innovation, but most companies usually try to combine these methods. For example, when the robotics technology was introduced it started as a disruptive innovation, but after seeing the products affect, the customer's request continuous improvements for future development, incremental innovation.
3.1.3 Knowledge spillover and Innovation clusters
The concept of the knowledge economy has gained importance in the recent years and is a topic of interest, with its tendency to create an innovative activity, where one firm exploit new knowledge and ideas while another firm adopt and apply with its ability to recombine knowledge. Additionally, Storper and Venables (2004) addresses knowledge spillover as a result of spatial proximity, indicating an improvement in the information flow. Thus, innovators depend on this flow of information. Knowledge spillovers with its natural
17 tendency and promoted by clustering, encourages competitive advantage through shared resources and interaction between co-located firms (Crespine-Mazet et al., 2013). Explained by Porter (2002) a Cluster is defined as a; “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field”. A great example of a functional cluster is Silicon Valley in California where thousands of companies are located, such as Facebook, Apple and Google. This cluster creates the possibility for knowledge spillovers among the companies, however many places around the world are trying to copy Silicon Valley without no success so far. For the robot industry, innovation clusters are essential to ensure
continuous advancements of technology.
3.2 Innovation strategy
The central aspect of an effective innovation strategy lies in a clear sense of direction for where and how innovation is going to help us move forward. Additionally, when the innovation strategy is applied it can give a roadmap for change but one has to deal with an uncertain future. Tidd and Bessant suggest three key steps; Strategic analysis, Strategic selection and strategic implementation (Tidd and Bessant, 2014). For example, the waste industry’ strategy is to reach higher sorting clarity in order to achieve more material recycling and higher sales price, which robotics could help with.
In order to begin with the strategic analysis, one would have to explore the innovation space and build sense of the overall environment, the threats and opportunities and the possible changes in the future. It is also important to reflect on what resources the organization can build on in order to create a sustainable competitive advantage in the future. However, it's important to be aware of the limitations such as the constantly changing environment and the unpredictable future.
18 According to Tidd and Bessant (2014) innovation dimensions can be divided into four
dimensions:
Product Changes in the things which an organization offers.
Process Changes in the ways in which these offerings are created and delivered Position Changes in the context into which the products/services are introduced Paradigm Changes in the underlying mental models which frame what the organization
does
Figure 6: Innovation dimensions (Source: Francis, D. and Bessant, J. 2006)
The second step is strategic selection, choosing the things we could do when only having scarce resources, balancing with risk and rewards across a portfolio of projects. First, we need to consider that we don’t have a completely free choice and recognize what we accumulate in the way of knowledge and other resources called ‘path dependency’. The resource-based view (RBV) of strategy proposes to look at firm's tangible resources such as location, material, building, inventory or less tangible such as employee skills, patents, licenses and others. Further, this strategy is driven by a firm’s valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resources. RBV assumes that resources are heterogeneous across
organization and can sustain competitiveness over time.
The last step is strategic implementation, looking at what we have explored and decided to do in order to plan for implementation. The question to ask is how are we going to do it, one of the tools to use is a simple project plan, in order to make our innovation to come alive it’s important to highlight the resources needed and potential trouble spots which may occur.
Another aspect to have in mind when creating a successful market strategy is to think through the underlying strategic concept of a business model overviewing value proposition, the target market, the supply side and the cost and revenue aspects. According to Verweire (2018) there are five core causes when an unsuccessful strategy implementation occur; too much focus on finance, too much focus on functional strategy instead of a business strategy, managers focuses only on one particular part of the strategy instead of a whole, managers creates a strong strategy but lacks in action-taking and lastly, leadership capabilities.
19 3.2.1 Value Chain analysis
The value chain analysis provides knowledge about the beneficial location for implementation of robotics to the waste industry, this in order to identify where in the value chain robotics could be most useful.
Porter explains the value chain in his book called Competitive Advantage written in 1985, introducing a tool for analyzing organizations and stressing the importance of the interaction between the discrete activities a firm perform. Through a clear and straightforward value chain which creates a significant understanding of how organizations ought to work to create competitive advantage. However, Porter’s book has not been updated since its publishing date, and some areas need to be revised such as the radical changes in business thinking that have significant implications for any value chain model (Presutti and Mawhinney, 2013).
Porter’s value chain illustrated in figure below, distinguishes between support activities such as firm’s infrastructure, human resource management, technology development, procurement and primary activities such as inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing, sales and customer service. It is important to recognize the concept of “flow”, underlining its importance of integrating the supply chain activities and the flow of materials, products, services, information and cash among the firm’s participants and suppliers. The importance lay in flow extends from a firm’s suppliers to its customers.
Figure 7: Michael Porter’s Value chain (source: oreilly.com)
20 An article by Koc and Bozdag (2016) argues there is a possible impact of a particular
technology in a firm’s value chain, causing the firm to reorganize if the degree of novelty of innovation is high. Further, Salomo et. al. (2007) means a higher degree of novelty increase the chance of creating a new market, reshaping the value chain and demands new facilities and production methods. Moreover, Stinger (2000) have a parallel approach assuming radical innovation demands a powerful shift in distribution mechanisms, production capability or customer relationship. Additionally, more resources both human and financial as well as research knowledge in order to measure the degree of novelty of innovation.
Lately, there has been concerns on how a firm meets its responsibilities to the society and the focus is now on the natural environment and global business practices. Which means that success of a company not only depends on profitability but also on social obligations as well as how the company meets its environmental obligations. In order to integrate social
responsibility in the value chain, the leadership and culture has to be recognized and become an important element of goals and strategies. Finally, product development is important to look at and see if a product is recyclable or in other areas such as the operations component, the issue should be if a product can be manufactured to minimize environmental impact (Presutti and Mawhinney, 2013).
3.2.2 Barriers and motivation factors
All industries have barriers and the waste industry are no exception, moreover the barrier can often be a motivational factor for improvement for the companies.
Cost reduction is in no doubt the fastest and easiest way to increase profitability of a company, however this method often causes distrust between the company and employees.
Yet, if the company creates a cost-control system they can ensure the company to increase savings and stay cost competitive in the long run. There are no company which can totally avoid the impact of increasing costs and most managers have learned to adjust to the
inflation. Although the managers usually don’t have the full overview and see how increasing capital requirements affect their ability to compete in the long run (Thompson, 1984).
21 Replace outdated production equipment is another barrier, yet not always necessary. There should be three consideration in order for a company to replacing outdated equipment. The first consideration is if the equipment is depleted of function, the second consideration is if the equipment becomes obsolete and the third and also the most frequent, is deterioration due to aging (Gage, 2013). Furthermore, the companies often have to counterbalance if
implementing a new equipment are rewarding enough before the return on the existing equipment have expired.
Contribute to a more environmentally friendly production, simply a desire to save the environment and a better future. When a firm chooses to go ECO- or environmentally
friendly manufacturing, they protect the plants and decrease exploitation, moreover conserves natural resources (Layne, 2019). Waste can be diminished though recycling, reuse and
remanufacturing, while products are made by tenable materials. Additionally, choosing to be Eco-friendly give the opportunity to reduce business’ costs with energy reduction, an
example would be to install solar panels on the building’s roof in order to save power costs.
Increase production capacity are most likely the biggest general motivational factor for companies. If we disregard from having a top-quality equipment, then having motivated employees can bring success to the business. A study by Ariely et. al. (2008) shows an increasing evidence for how employees are more motivated if their work is acknowledged and have a meaning. With motivated employees there are a higher chance of increased productivity, moreover it encourages and promotes a higher enthusiasm to cooperate both in teams and independently.
Another barrier could be human error (reduction). The machines today can in most cases replace human manpower entirely, the reason for this is because a machine doesn't require food, sleep or social needs. Moreover, machines can work more or less round-the-clock while humans have laws against maximum working hours. Additionally, humans are vulnerable to illnesses compared to a machine who technically can’t get sick but needs routinely
maintenance.
22 Requirements and regulations are obligations for the Norwegian companies to follow
according to the government. There are rules and regulations for all industries, some more specific than others. All requirements and regulations can be gathers either on the website Lovdata.no or on government pages.
Other barriers or motivational factors for companies to improve their innovation strategy could be such as; the "raw materials" they obtain requires it, demands from the customers etc.
23
Chapter 4: Method
The intention for this section is to describe the research design and find the most suitable approach in order to answer what the Norwegian waste industry find important in order to increase the degree of robotics.
Qualitative methods go into depth while Quantitative methods is searching in width (Aase and Fossåskaret, 2014). The most common explanation for qualitative method is; procedures for the scientists use to collect the qualitative methods. Qualitative data is referred to pictures, texts and sound from observations and interviews, quantitative data however constitutes of numerical materials. In the interpretation phase of a study, it is assumed that in the qualitative research one analyzes the texts in which the empirical data is inserted, while in the analysis within quantitative methods, one refers to counting and spreading of categorized phenomena.
Its basic to know that it's possible to use both quantitative- and qualitative methods within the same phenomena.
4.1. Qualitative method
For our research question we have chosen a qualitative method in order to get a broader and deeper understanding of the waste industry. Qualitative research gives the opportunity to collect new and firsthand information. There is a scarcity of available information on the waste industry needs which qualitative interview method will resolve.
4.1.1 Different qualitative methods
For our thesis we have decided to proceed with the interview method in order to uncover opinions and different perspectives towards implementing robotics to the waste industry.
There are three different qualitative methods;
Observations studies are traditionally characterized as social anthropology. In this tradition many years of field studies in foreign cultures have been the ideal for good research.
Observation method is often referred to as ethnography (Tjora, 2010). According to
24 Hammersley and Atkinson this method is based on researches participate, either open or hidden, they take part in people’s daily life over a certain time period, observe what happens, listens to what’s being said, asking questions, all in all, collects all the data which is available for them in order to shed light on the theme which is in focus.
These studies are typically defined by naturalism, which is an idea that the social world should be studied in its natural situation, as opposed to, for example, experimental setup.
Interview method aims to collect data through words and its purpose is to understand the aspects of the interview’s conversation from their perspective. The structure of the research method can be compared to the daily life conversation but using a professional interviewee method a certain interview technique needs to be applied (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2017). Yet, if the interview method is not used carefully possible misunderstandings and asymmetric power ratio could occur between the researcher and the interviewee. There are several types of interviews such as depth interviews, semi-structured interviews and group interview.
Document studies is a method where we mainly use documents which originally are produced for purposes other than research (Tjora, 2010). The two previous methods,
observation and interviews, we have had a lot of interactions with the participants but, when we are researching, we are obligated to reduce the strain on the participants to the minimum.
Document studies are traditionally perceived as so-called “unobtrusive methods” where we generate empirical data without the involvement of non-researching participants. By
analyzing various already existing documents, we can obtain information about matters that are recorded at specific times of places, for different purposes. The different types of
document studies are pure document studies, documents as additional data and the diary method.
25 4.1.2 Different interview methods
For our thesis we have created an interview guide to follow a semi-structured interview to be able to gain as much knowledge as possible from the companies we have chosen.
There are three different interview methods;
Depth interviews can be divided into three phases, warm-up questions, reflect questions and closing questions. The first phase is about asking simple, short and concrete questions about work task and responsibilities. Second phase is the fundamental stage, according to Spradley asking the so called “grand tour questions” (Tjora, 2010). In other words, the informant provides answers to the questions providing reflected and in-depth answers. The last phase leads to closing questions, leading the informant away from the reflection questions and over to information about the collected data and other information such as providing the informant with a feedback in the future and thanking for the participation.
Semi-structured interviews are planned interviews with its purpose to obtain descriptions of specific experiences of the interviewees but yet are flexible, allowing ideas to be brought up during the interview. This type of interviews can make a more use of the knowledge-
producing potentials of a dialogue, to explain this the interviewee can follow up on whatever angles are important and there is a greater chance of assemble more knowledge rather than following a preset interview structure (Brinkmann, 2012)
Group interview is a form for interview where several informants discusses one or several topics and grants a flexible interview similar to everyday discussion. The positive aspect of this structure is the different opinions from several informants and can give a feeling of safety regarding a group effort (Brinkmann, 2012).
26 4.2. Primary and Secondary data
Throughout the thesis we have used both secondary and primary data. We have used secondary data in the background, theory and method chapters, and primary data for our analysis.
Secondary: The definition of secondary data is that the collected data are collected by other people for another purposes (Johannessen et. al., 2011). Our secondary data is based on academic literature, such as books, articles and websites, within the subject of innovation, robotics and waste industry documents.
Primary data: The definition of Primary data however, are “fresh” information in form of interviews and observations. Throughout our analysis we are collecting primary data from semi-structured interviews with six different waste companies from different regions of Norway.
4.3. Reliability and Validity of Data
Silverman discusses two central concepts regarding the credibility of scientific research called validity and reliability (Silverman, 2001). Validity is about the “truth” of the data, meaning whether the data represents the social phenomenon it is referring to
(Johannesen et.al, 2011). Additionally, it is important to critically evaluate the research effort and whether the measurement has been successfully measured. On the other hand, reliability refers to degree to which you can rely on stable and consistent results. However, reliability can be more difficult to measure when using the qualitative data instead of quantitative. The reason is, when qualitative method is used the information has less structure and is being interpreted by the researchers. Therefore, it can be difficult to trace documentation of the data collected (Johannessen et al., 2004).
In order to enhance validity and reliability, we have gathered as many validity points as possible. During the interviews we audio recorded and took sufficient notes to confirm
27 statements. The participants were contacted based on their job positions in the firm with the intention to gather the knowledge that would support our thesis question.
Despite qualitative methods have proven to be effective there are some limitations to this collection method. According to Kvale and Brinkmann the known limitations are
manipulation dialogue, one-way dialogue, instrumental dialogue and monopoly on interpreting (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2017).
Manipulation dialogue: The interviewer is looking for specific answers without the
interviewee knowing about it. The interviewer asks indirect questions in order to manipulate the interviewee to answer the way the interviewer wants.
Monopoly on interpreting: The researcher usually has a monopoly on defining the statements from the interview and the privilege to interpret and report back what the interviewee really meant.
Instrumental dialogue: The interviewer asks the questions and the interviewee answers with short answers. Which leads to little information from the interview. The goal is no longer to have a satisfactory dialog, but rather to have consistent research to report back to the case study.
4.4 Conducting of the interviews
We have conducted six interviews for our thesis using a prepared Interview-guide (Appendix 2), which is a form to structure the interviews and differ from surveys where questions have to be fully presented before collecting the answers (Brinkmann, 2012). We carefully select the companies based on their location in Norway, we choose two nationwide, two west, one east and one mid-Norway company. The companies’ names are Norsk
Gjenvinning AS (hereafter called NG), Ragn-Sells AS, Westco AS, IVAR IKS, Romerike avfallsforedling IKS (hereafter called ROAF) and Retura TRV.
After arranging meetings, we conducted the interviews through either skype, telephone or in person. In addition, we chose to have the interviews in Norwegian in order to make the interviewee more comfortable, to gain more complete answers and less misunderstandings.
We assembled substantially amount of information and we record the interviews using a
28 microphone with special features for better voice quality. Furthermore, we transcribe all interviews word for word which is attached in Appendix 3. Transcribing, interview and assessment of information obtained is time consuming which is the reason why we chose six companies in total.
The interviewed companies
IVAR IKS Intercommunal company - Responsible for water, drainage and renovation for 320 000 residents through Rogaland county.
Mainly household waste.
Ragn-Sells AS Private company - Core responsibilities are transportation, sorting and processing of waste from business and private sector.
Nationwide
ROAF IKS Intercommunal company - They operate Europe's most modern household waste sorting facility. Responsible for about 200 000 residents in Akershus county. Mainly household waste.
Westco AS Private company - Leading in Rogaland on collection and recovery of business waste.
Retura TRV Private company - Rough residual waste sorting facility are Europe's only of its kind and are designed to promote further material recovery. Main focus is business and construction waste.
Located in Heimdal near Trondheim.
NG AS Private company - It’s the country’s largest supplier of waste and recycling. Building new facility 2018/2019.
Nationwide.
Figure 8: overview over companies interviewed for the thesis (Source: own illustration)
29
Chapter 5: Analysis and Findings
We have divided the different questions from our interview guide into eight parts in our analysis. All the parts have been marked with (Q2-17) in the headings in order to underline which question is related to which part. Further we have cited some of our informants, affiliated our information to our research question and created a chapter off dissimilarities on the larger differences. Additionally, we looked into RobotNorge’s future possibilities within the waste industry.
Throughout the analyses the informants we have interviewed will only be referred to though the company name. In addition, we have interviewed people within operating positions in order to collect the necessary data. Further we have had a talk with a consultant within the waste industry for general information and he will hereafter be referred to as The Consultant.
5.1 Current Standpoint
The Norwegian waste industry have matured greatly through the years, especially when the automation machines became available, additionally there is a bigger focus on the environment today.
5.1.1 The degree of robotics today (Q2)
Based on the information we have collected though our interviews, there is only one company that is about to start using robots with AI in their production process, NG. The reason for the upgrades were due to heavy fire in 2018, making it necessary to replace all of the equipment. Their vision is to build a new fully automated line that is considered to be the best on the market. Using four robots with arms with help of AI and machine learning to read and analyze each object.
However, ROAF, IVAR and NG also use NIR technology machines. According to TOMRA’s website the sensor-based sorting technology is the new modern method for recycling facility in waste industry, which further is verified by ROAF and IVAR during the interviews. The machine’s uses innovative sensors scan and identify different materials, which can take time, testing, errors and improvements before its more accurate than human hands. However, there are some weaknesses of this technology regarding recognition of items
30 such as black plastic, glass and rubber. The system recovers a wide range of materials from different waste streams such as household waste, paper, packaging and others.
Ragn-sells, Westco and Retura on the other hand does not use robots with or without AI, but Ragn-sells have considered to invest in robotics in the future. Furthermore, we have had a talk with The Consultant from the waste industry and he mentioned Retura build a facility with an overseas supplier which advised NIR-machines for plastic. However, there were no plastic, but the main waste quantity was wood, metal and stone. Furthermore, he proposed Retura could consider a robot to pick out metal and stones more efficiently. Additionally, The Consultant suggested Retura has the opportunity to implement a robot to their facilities today, yet, after reviewing ZenRobotics prices it was not beneficial for Retura.
The information in this section indicates there are already some usage of robots without AI especially within the intercommunal companies, however the private companies have neither robot implemented yet. The exception we see is NG which have been granted to develop an entirely new facility where they are going to implement both TOMRA and robots with AI for their paper press.
5.1.2 Value chain capabilities (Q3,5,7)
The purpose of defining company capabilities in their value chain is to uncover the flow activities and learning about the infrastructure in order to see where there are potential for improvements. When bottlenecks and inefficiencies are uncovered it’s easier to create a strategy on how to resolve these obstacles.
In the interviews we asked where in the value chain the robots would be useful based on today’s technology, we presented them with three options; early in the value chain meaning 1) obtaining of materials 2) in the production processes or 3) in the end of the process meaning the packing of materials.
1) Obtaining process are considered from the users’ dumpsters to garbage truck and to the waste company.
2) From the waste company receive the garbage and though the handling process.
31 3) From the sorted materials are packed, transfer to trucks for shipment to customers or
further handling.
According to collected information all six companies both intercommunal and private have the same opinion that the robot would be most efficient to have within the production process. However, some of the informants have some great ideas for how to use robotics within part 1), moreover, most of them referred to how it would be valuable to have more automation around the forklift process within part 3).
If a robot were to be implemented in the production process the company would gain
competitive advantages and will presumably achieve higher quality products for their buyers which will assumable lead to higher sales prices. In order to accomplish high quality products (recycled material) the company have to sort out the positive- and the negative fractions.
Positive fractions are sorting out raw materials which can be renewed, the items you want to keep, which creates a higher end product quality. By sorting out the negative fractions means to remove the destructive garbage material which causes lower end product quality.
An example of negative fraction could be such as High-density polyethylene (HDPE) which can be found in a specific type of plastic, for instance shampoo bottles, Zalobottles and silicone tubes. The reason for sorting out negative fractions such as HDPE would be to increase the quality on recycled the plastic beads. This type of sorting task would seem to be the optimal solution for implementing a robot with AI to the production process.
However, it's seems to be easier to implement the robot in the intercommunal companies such as IVAR and ROAF compared to the private, since the private sector have both a different production process and waste types. Still NG would be the exception with their new high technology manufacturing process.
Additionally, since the private companies work with heavier waste types than intercommunal companies, we have noticed that in addition to assembly line they mostly use bigger
machines, lifts, excavator et cetera.
We have created a production process value chain model with help from our informants, the end result is illustrated in figure 9. During the interview we asked a question; “To what extent is it important to upgrade the production processes today?” (Appendix 2). All the informants
32 indicated the importance of continually developing the production process to keep up with constant changes within the industry, additionally to gain competitive advantages. Despite this they rarely upgrade because of the business finances, such as machine depreciation.
The figure below shows how the waste industry general production process is, with the proviso of some companies doing things a little differently. After gathering the waste, it loaded off in a pile and then on to an assembly line or into a millstone to make the big pieces smaller. How the company sort the waste from each other depends on the company. IVAR and ROAF uses a long assembly line which has the ability to go through up to 40 tons waste per hour by the help of the NIR-machines, where all the waste are sorted to different lines and to an end stations where its sorted to piles of plastic, paper, metal, glass, residual waste et cetera. From this point the residual waste is burned and the plastic and paper are pressed together in large cubes and stored until trucks pick up for shipment to the different buyers.
(Figure 9: Waste process value chain model, own illustration)
Some of the private companies on the other hand, such as Westco and NG rent out containers to their customers so the customers can sort right away. Moreover, they rent out more than one container and sort the waste in each container which means it’s easier for the company because the waste already is sorted when arriving. However, the residual waste in the private companies’ containers are sorted with different machines types than NIR’s. Despite this the processes are more or less the same as the intercommunal companies.
Furthermore, this figure shows why the sorting part of production process needs to be upgraded regularly in order to increase production capacity and to obtain the end result as
33 close to 99 % clarity. With the aim to possibly achieve a higher grade of material recycling and potentially higher price.
Nevertheless, its inspiring how dedicated and motivated the employees within these companies are towards the opportunities regarding waste, the NG’s vision gives a good overview of how most of them look at it “Det finnes ikke noe mer søppel etter deg men kun råvare på avveie”, this according to our NG informant.
5.1.3 Barriers (Q4,16)
The Norwegian waste industry have some barriers which we find interesting
regarding implementation of robotics. We gathered information on what type of barriers the informants assumed would occur if a robot with AI were to be implemented with regard to such as customer demands and regulations.
Based on the collected data from the interviews we identify several barriers to account for.
Retura and Westco expresses how the progress of the robot technology is too slow and the technology today isn’t good enough, while IVAR think that robot is not fast enough to replace NIR-machine because of the turnover capacity. However, to install a robot as an addition to the production process is more realistic in order to increase the clarity of the sorted waste. Furthermore, IVAR reflects on the robot’s accuracy when it picks out the desired waste from the assembly line it can easily bring more than the desired waste because of the gripping mechanism. Moreover, the gripping mechanism and sensors have to be further improved in case the waste “rolls” on the assembly line. An example he gave us was; if there were stockings on the assembly line it could be hanging between the assembly line and sorted pile, additionally there can become a mess around the robot’s working station.
ROAF however see a barrier with the robot’s software capacity and sensor functions in regards to not recognizing the waste through the sensor. Along with picture logging of all the different types of packaging from food producers which would demand a severe software capacity.
Additionally, The Consultant mentions how a robot can work round-the-clock but the capacity per hour are not good enough, however the robot can work through weekends in
